Author Topic: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco  (Read 15174 times)

acme54321

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2520
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2020, 07:38:36 AM »
Anyone go to the town hall they had last night?

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7838
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2020, 10:44:38 AM »
I did not. I've talked to some of the various sides of this, and may be doing another article in the future. In my opinion, Right Size San Marco has a pretty strong legal argument for their perspective, based on what the city land use and zoning says. The developers and supporters have a good argument as far as what the development would bring to the neighborhood and local businesses, but I'm not sure what their legal argument is. At any rate, It's going to be a matter of the interpretation that City Council finds most persuasive.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

jaxjags

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2020, 08:18:54 PM »
This is what I sent to all CC menbers about this is. I encourage others to do the same. Zoning and overlays may be against this, but how many times has that been over ridden for other developments. My biggest concern is a future of NO development and empty pocket parks.

I am writing to support the development of Park Place at San Marco apartments. Review of the plans and comments by the developer and his staff gives the following reasons for this support:

1.   This is a Right Sized development. The building size and unit make-up will not lead to increased traffic or overloading of public services in the area.
2.   The developer is taking into account the neighbors, as in the use of apartments to hide the garage on Mitchel Street.
3.   This building fits the San Marco area with good choice of architectural details.
4.   The building fits the scale of the area as rooflines will be similar to the new Publix and the existing church.
5.   This development will not lower property values in the area.

I believe some area residents just don’t want apartments in the San Marco area.

I believe that the City Council must listen to all voices and then make a decision which is best for the neighborhood, the community at large and Jacksonville. Only a few vocal people should not dictate the situation. If we turn down development that is done well just because we don’t want density, then we will end up with NO development. We will have more abandoned buildings and empty lots turned parking.

I live in North County and have 2 new subdivisions going in with over 200 homes within a .25 mile of my home. I encourage this development as long as it done correctly. It will help raise property values and bring new services both public and private.

acme54321

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2520
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2020, 08:28:06 AM »
2.   The developer is taking into account the neighbors, as in the use of apartments to hide the garage on Mitchel Street.

I don't believe this is still part of the proposal.

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7838
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2020, 10:22:27 AM »
2.   The developer is taking into account the neighbors, as in the use of apartments to hide the garage on Mitchel Street.

I don't believe this is still part of the proposal.

It isn’t.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

jaxjags

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2020, 06:03:42 PM »
My second email to CC members had that removed and asked why would someone want to look at a garage and not what looks like a house. Not sure I get it?

But if that was what was requested, the developers obliged them.

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7838
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2020, 07:21:46 PM »
My second email to CC members had that removed and asked why would someone want to look at a garage and not what looks like a house. Not sure I get it?

But if that was what was requested, the developers obliged them.

Well, they want the whole development shorter as per the overlay. The developers dropped the height on the garage side and the only way to do that without loosing parking spots was to replace those units with more parking.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

jaxlongtimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 647
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2020, 11:41:17 PM »
Zoning and overlays may be against this, but how many times has that been over ridden for other developments...

The below is a famous quote from a German Lutheran pastor about the expansion of Nazi power:
Quote
    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

         Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Not to put it on the same plane, but many fight zoning changes in their neighborhood with the same concern expressed here ... that if they don't fight the first battle, there will be evermore impactful developments to follow that get harder to attack due to prior precedents.  Where does it all end? 

You basically confirm this fear with this line:  "how many times has that been over ridden for other developments."  This is why much of Jacksonville's historic buildings and neighborhood character has been greatly chiseled away.  We never draw a hard line in the sand and stand by it but rather defend rampant development because, once we made one exception, we might as well make exceptions for everyone without discrimination.  We see the same pattern leading to suburban sprawl and the gradual decimation of virgin green space and environmentally sensitive lands.

JPalmer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2020, 09:35:47 PM »
Honestly, considering the fact that Andy Allen was clearly part of the JEA con-job.  I’m not certain I would be mad to see this and every one of Corner Lot’s deals to fall through. 

jaxjags

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2020, 08:52:26 PM »
Zoning and overlays may be against this, but how many times has that been over ridden for other developments...

The below is a famous quote from a German Lutheran pastor about the expansion of Nazi power:
Quote
    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

         Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Not to put it on the same plane, but many fight zoning changes in their neighborhood with the same concern expressed here ... that if they don't fight the first battle, there will be evermore impactful developments to follow that get harder to attack due to prior precedents.  Where does it all end? 

You basically confirm this fear with this line:  "how many times has that been over ridden for other developments."  This is why much of Jacksonville's historic buildings and neighborhood character has been greatly chiseled away.  We never draw a hard line in the sand and stand by it but rather defend rampant development because, once we made one exception, we might as well make exceptions for everyone without discrimination.  We see the same pattern leading to suburban sprawl and the gradual decimation of virgin green space and environmentally sensitive lands.

Then we will have a church building in very bad disrepair or a lot empty for 10-20 years(see Publix lot). The church owns property. They have property rights as all of us do. Maybe they should go back to a commercial development. Not sure I would consider this church property historic.




also

MusicMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2020, 08:18:23 AM »
I loved what the Weavers did at John Gorrie, and I wish the Church elders had thought about that before going into a contract. When I go over to the site, it looks like the existing building fronting Hendricks (between the sanctuary and Mathews)  is suitable for residential re-use, and then they could have built something within the existing guidelines on the backside, allowing for a nice complex that worked for everyone.   Once you start trying to make the most possible money out of the situation (like a developer),  then you start 'pushing the envelope' of the existing overlay boundaries, which it seems to me, has put us in this predicament.

Captain Zissou

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3872
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2020, 09:01:05 AM »
I loved what the Weavers did at John Gorrie, and I wish the Church elders had thought about that before going into a contract. When I go over to the site, it looks like the existing building fronting Hendricks (between the sanctuary and Mathews)  is suitable for residential re-use, and then they could have built something within the existing guidelines on the backside, allowing for a nice complex that worked for everyone.   Once you start trying to make the most possible money out of the situation (like a developer),  then you start 'pushing the envelope' of the existing overlay boundaries, which it seems to me, has put us in this predicament.

Delores Weaver lost tons of money on John Gorrie and the only reason that development happened is because she's a billionaire who didn't care about financial returns, but wanted to complete the project as a gift to the neighborhood.  The developers may not only care about money, but they do need to make money on this project.  Comparing this to John Gorrie is inaccurate and that project probably screwed up things for local developers because the uninformed think ta similar product is financially feasible for anyone.

MusicMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2020, 09:52:12 AM »
Let me help you Captain.

"I love what the Weavers's did with John Gorrie"..... They used the existing structure to make their units.

"I wish the church elders had thought about that before going into a contract"...... It might have been smart to hire an experienced local Commercial broker or real estate attorney to vet the proposal(s) prior to signing. Preferably one with San Marco background. Perhaps they did, but I have not seen that discussed.  Were any other proposals looked at?

The fact that the Weavers spent $15 million is hard to fathom, as that is about the budget CDP had to build from ground up the 145 units at SoBa, including a big garage and pool. 

fieldafm

  • Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4361
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2020, 10:21:01 AM »
Quote
then you start 'pushing the envelope' of the existing overlay boundaries

They could have just torn down all the buildings and built a strip mall within the confines of the existing zoning code. Perhaps the existing zoning code doesn't adequately reflect the realities of today.

Quote
I loved what the Weavers did at John Gorrie, and I wish the Church elders had thought about that before going into a contract. When I go over to the site, it looks like the existing building fronting Hendricks (between the sanctuary and Mathews)  is suitable for residential re-use

Comparing the John Gorrie to the hodgepodge of buildings on this site is apples to oranges. Gorrie has much more square feet in its existing footprint, has parking on site (btw, it needed a parking variance), is much more interesting architecturally... and was a passion project that did not make money for the developer. 

BTW, its now 15 years later and the Gorrie retail pad sites are still not developed.

Quote
It might have been smart to hire an experienced local Commercial broker or real estate attorney to vet the proposal(s) prior to signing. Preferably one with San Marco background. Perhaps they did, but I have not seen that discussed. 

The developer lives in San Marco. The developer hired another local developer who lives in San Marco, whose headquarters are in San Marco, and has more property in San Marco than only 2 or 3 other companies. The civil engineer lives in San Marco and has designed many award-winning commercial projects in San Marco... oh, they also redesigned San Marco Square/Balis Park and were largely responsible for the San Marco By Design design guidelines.   

BUT, the planning consultant and the land use attorney both live in Avondale... so maybe you have a point?

Quote
The fact that the Weavers spent $15 million is hard to fathom, as that is about the budget CDP had to build from ground up the 145 units at SoBa, including a big garage and pool.

Another apples to grapefruit comparison... but clearly you've never penciled out either kind of development, so its understandable that the context escapes you.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 10:23:13 AM by fieldafm »

MusicMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2020, 10:30:37 AM »
 "
The developer lives in San Marco. The developer hired another local developer who lives in San Marco, whose headquarters are in San Marco, and has more property in San Marco than only 2 or 3 other companies. The civil engineer lives in San Marco and has designed many award-winning commercial projects in San Marco... oh, they also redesigned San Marco Square/Balis Park and were largely responsible for the San Marco By Design design guidelines.   

BUT, the planning consultant and the land use attorney both live in Avondale... so maybe you have a point?"

Wow, hard to explain all the pushback.